The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse, home of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM
The Trump administration has filed its formal reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in the ongoing legal challenge brought by former NCUA Board Members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka, defending their April 2025 removals as lawful and constitutionally permitted.
In the May 23 filing, government attorneys argued that the Federal Credit Union Act does not shield NCUA Board Members from at-will dismissal by the President. “Congress did not include a removal restriction in the statutory text,” the filing stated, adding that “Congress’s silence on removal cannot create a restriction.” The administration cited Collins v. Yellen and Severino v. Biden in support of its position that removal protections must be explicit in law, and where they are not, the default is presidential discretion.
Recommended For You
Harper and Otsuka contended in their lawsuit that their dismissals violate longstanding principles of independent agency governance, pointing to the Supreme Court’s Humphrey’s Executor decision, which upheld removal protections for Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners. The administration countered that the NCUA, unlike the FTC, wields “substantial executive power,” and thus is not subject to the same constraints.
“The NCUA of 2025 indisputably wields substantial executive power,” the filing stated. “Plaintiffs cannot reasonably contend otherwise.”
The reply further argued that even if the statute did include removal protections, they would be unconstitutional under recent Supreme Court precedent. “Under binding precedent,” the filing stated, “a removal restriction on NCUA Board Members would be unconstitutional.”
Addressing the plaintiffs’ request for reinstatement, the administration asserted that courts lack authority to reappoint principal officers removed by a sitting president. Citing the Supreme Court’s stay earlier this month in Trump v. Wilcox, the filing stated: “The constitutional injury suffered when a President is forced to accept an ousted officer back into office far outweighs any injury plaintiffs face.”
The government concluded by requesting the court deny all relief sought by Harper and Otsuka and grant summary judgment in favor of the administration. At stake is not only the fate of the two former board members, but also the broader question of whether the NCUA can operate as an independent regulator without presidential interference.
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.